Masks Outdoors

[boston_e]

I can't follow CNN's or the CDC's math: 8+3=11. 11 positive cases divided by 2,961 people vaccinated = 0.0037 infection rate among those vaccinated. Thats 99.996% protection. The numbers are even better if you only consider those in the study that had both shots, only 3 cases out of 2,961, or 99.998% effective. And this data is from that questionable right wing conspiracy source CNN and CDC. That is nowhere near 90%. They don't explain their math.

I don't know if i can work out the exact math here, but vaccine efficacy is determined by comparing the number of cases in the trial vaccinated group and trial unvaccinated (placebo) control group.... it isn't a number of cases divided by the number of vaccines given.

Edit: Here is a pretty good explanation: https://anthonybmasters.medium.com/vacc ... 1c9da8f766

[Mister Moose]

. it isn't a number of cases divided by the number of vaccines given.

From your article:

"Vaccine efficacy is: the relative change in having a disease in the vaccinated group."

When you read on, they explain the use of the term "relative". This is how effective the vaccine is over the efficacy of doing nothing, ie the placebo.

This is a distorted (read reduced) view of the efficacy of someone who has had the vaccine. Someone who has had the vaccine wants to know the current chances of their getting the disease, not how much their chances have improved over doing nothing.

If your article is correct, this tell us that the chance of a Moderna or Pfizer double vaccinated person not getting infected is actually higher than is being touted by the CDC.

[Nikoli]

I would imagine the caution comes from the sample size. This type of hedge is normal in statistical mathematics

[boston_e]

Someone who has had the vaccine wants to know the current chances of their getting the disease, not how much their chances have improved over doing nothing.

I get what you are saying, but there would not be a way to really define that number since there are so many other factors involved.... how often are they out and exposed? How many others in their community have been vaccinated? How close to herd immunity is the area they live in? etc etc etc

If your article is correct, this tell us that the chance of a Moderna or Pfizer double vaccinated person not getting infected is actually higher than is being touted by the CDC.

Again I get what you are saying, but this is not what the CDC is touting. Vaccine Efficacy rate does not equal chance of not getting infected.

[gardi]

This is a distorted (read reduced) view of the efficacy of someone who has had the vaccine. Someone who has had the vaccine wants to know the current chances of their getting the disease, not how much their chances have improved over doing nothing.

I don't disagree with your statement (we all would like to know our chances) but they can't know that in the way that you propose. Just because study participants did not happen to get sick throughout the duration of the study does not mean that they won't or can't (if you give people a ski helmet and have them stand on the side of the road for 5 hours and none of them get hit by a car you wouldn't conclude that helmets are 100% protective against being run over by a car). For any participant, the risk of contracting the disease is going to be different and it can't be controlled by the study. Do they live in NYC and take the subway every day or isolated in their Montana cabin? Do they wear masks? Do they go to bars? Just looking at the numbers that way doesn't really tell you anything other than the fraction of participants that became infected while they were being monitored. For a given individual in the sample with immunity and low risk of being exposed their individual chance might have been close to 0, while for another with no immunity and risky behaviors in a hot spot for infections it could have been close to 100.

Clinical studies are designed to answer the question of whether (in this case) a vaccine is effective (or, as you put it, how the chances of someone getting it have improved), not to determine your individual risk factor. But one way to think about how it affects your own risk is that assuming 90% protection, our risk of getting infected decreases by 10-fold after taking the vaccine (even if we can't exactly know what it was in the first place).

[XtremeJibber2001]

This is a distorted (read reduced) view of the efficacy of someone who has had the vaccine. Someone who has had the vaccine wants to know the current chances of their getting the disease, not how much their chances have improved over doing nothing.

I don't disagree with your statement (we all would like to know our chances) but they can't know that in the way that you propose. Just because study participants did not happen to get sick throughout the duration of the study does not mean that they won't or can't (if you give people a ski helmet and have them stand on the side of the road for 5 hours and none of them get hit by a car you wouldn't conclude that helmets are 100% protective against being run over by a car). For any participant, the risk of contracting the disease is going to be different and it can't be controlled by the study. Do they live in NYC and take the subway every day or isolated in their Montana cabin? Do they wear masks? Do they go to bars? Just looking at the numbers that way doesn't really tell you anything other than the fraction of participants that became infected while they were being monitored. For a given individual in the sample with immunity and low risk of being exposed their individual chance might have been close to 0, while for another with no immunity and risky behaviors in a hot spot for infections it could have been close to 100.

Clinical studies are designed to answer the question of whether (in this case) a vaccine is effective (or, as you put it, how the chances of someone getting it have improved), not to determine your individual risk factor. But one way to think about how it affects your own risk is that assuming 90% protection, our risk of getting infected decreases by 10-fold after taking the vaccine (even if we can't exactly know what it was in the first place).

This.

[throbster]

Does anyone know if Killington has lifted the mask requirement now that the CDC issued updated guidance?

[gardi]

So now instead of following the science, we should say "f*** them" because what, you don't like what the science says?

I am immunized and therefore cannot get covid in a crowd.

Well, you THINK you are immunized. You can't really know (or the vaccine would be 100% effective). Your personal risk is probably very low, because even though the probability of getting infected is not negligible after taking the vaccine, the probably of getting serious disease is really low (not 0 though). However, as has been pointed out, if you do get infected you could still contribute to getting other people sick. Also, it takes several weeks to develop immunity. So at least for a few more months I don't think it's fair to assume that everybody who is not immune is so by choice.

I understand that this might not seem too strong of an argument to you (after all if they are not fully vaccinated they could stay home, stay away, keep their masks on, etc). I don't necessarily agree but I get that. But there's another consideration that could affect us all: variants. Every time a person gets infected there's a chance that the virus will mutate. If the resulting variant leads to a selective advantage (for instance the resulting virus is more infective) then that variant will be more likely to infect another individual than the original virus and thus the variant will "survive" and spread through the population. Until now, the fraction of the population immune to the virus has been relatively low, so a variant that would overcome this immunity had no real selective advantage. Now that a high fraction of the population is vaccinated, mixing infected people with vaccinated people with no masks at a large scale is maybe not such a great idea.

Is it likely? I don't know, but some variants already have been shown to diminish the efficacy of the vaccines, so it's certainly not impossible (it's not super clearly written, but this article covers different viewpoints https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00722-8). I would rather keep my mask on for a few more weeks than take the risk of having to go back into lockdown...

[throbster]

Thank you Dr Fauci. I could walk outdoors and get hit by an asteroid too.

This pandemic has created a mental disorder with people not being realistic about risks. I had a gentleman give me the stink eye because I had the gall not to wear a mask while standing by myself on top of a 4200' mountain.

We will be dealing with this mental disorder for years I am afraid.

[easyrider16]

It has also revealed that many people don't get the science, don't try to understand it, and would rather believe whatever allows them do what they want. Those of us who respect the science have been dealing with this disorder since the beginning of time.

[hillbangin]

It has also revealed that many people don't get the science, don't try to understand it, and would rather believe whatever allows them do what they want. Those of us who respect the science have been dealing with this disorder since the beginning of time.

The real problem is there's lots of scientists with slightly differing views on what's going on.

It's all about mitigating risks.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[throbster]

...

[gardi]

Well I leave the risk assessment to you, this is a free country. I just meant to clarify that from a scientific point of view the risk exists and that there's a rationale based on scientific fact for the updated CDC guidelines (presumably, I am not privy to their discussions. They might roll dice for all I know). Personally I'm not particularly attached to the human species. But I'd much rather ski without a mask on next year and we won't unless cases have pretty much disappeared in VT.

Also, some people are more risk averse than others. I've never been too concerned about getting infected myself (no risk factors), but I can understand why others would (and ought to) be. The problem with infectious diseases is that because they are communicable your assessment of risk conflicts with that of others. Since I don't like to be yelled at (or get the stink eye) I try to stick to the guidelines (although in Killington's case I admit they were a bit vague. Are you no longer "actively skiing" if you stop to catch your breath?).

[easyrider16]

The real problem is there's lots of scientists with slightly differing views on what's going on.

Actually, I think the real problem is that when people don't like what the scientific community says, they find some lone dissenting quack with a differing view and use that as justification to disregard the science.

I agree it's about mitigating risks. But to understand the risks you have to start by understanding the science. Proposals that are based on an erroneous premise (e.g. I'm vaccinated so I can't get infected) should be disregarded.

[newpylong1]

Thank you Dr Fauci. I could walk outdoors and get hit by an asteroid too.

This pandemic has created a mental disorder with people not being realistic about risks. I had a gentleman give me the stink eye because I had the gall not to wear a mask while standing by myself on top of a 4200' mountain.

We will be dealing with this mental disorder for years I am afraid.

This we agree on. Our friends in Eastern MA say others are giving folks the stink eye if they are even in public walking unmasked by themselves.

I think common sense needs to prevail. For me, even though I am fully vaccinated, I am going to wear the mask when in close proximity to other strangers until those vax and herd numbers go up. Hopefully by mid summer it becomes a non-issue. As for indoors with vaccinated people, game on.

The vague/counter-intuitive CDC guidance doesn't help...but what there is says to keep doing this.